From: "Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@broadcom.com>
To: "Joe Perches" <joe@perches.com>
Cc: "Matthew Carlson" <mcarlson@broadcom.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] tg3: Add 5720 ASIC rev
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:05:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110404230506.GA8250@mcarlson.broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301942262.1941.60.camel@Joe-Laptop>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:37:42AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 11:24 -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
> > This patch adds support for the 5720 ASIC rev.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Carlson <mcarlson@broadcom.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/tg3.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > drivers/net/tg3.h | 5 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/tg3.c b/drivers/net/tg3.c
> > index b7e03a6..b105cdd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/tg3.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/tg3.c
> > @@ -98,12 +98,14 @@
> > */
> > #define TG3_RX_STD_RING_SIZE(tp) \
> > ((GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5717 || \
> > - GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5719) ? \
> > + GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5719 || \
> > + GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5720) ? \
>
> Maybe it'd be better to convert all of these:
>
> if (GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5717 ||
> GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5719 ||
> GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) == ASIC_REV_5720)
>
> tests to a common functions something like:
>
> static bool can_asic_<foo>(struct tg3 *tp)
> {
> int rev = GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id);
> return (rev == ASIC_REV_5717) ||
> (rev == ASIC_REV_5719) ||
> (rev == ASIC_REV_5720);
> }
In general, we do try to do this. We already have a TG3_FLG3_5717_PLUS
flag, but it includes the 57765 ASIC rev. I thought :
if ((tp->tg3_flags3 & TG3_FLG3_5717_PLUS) &&
GET_ASIC_REV(tp->pci_chip_rev_id) != ASIC_REV_57765)
didn't look much cleaner. Demoting the 57765 from that flag also
uglifies the code too much.
Let me think about this a little more.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-04 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-04 18:24 [PATCH net-next 1/7] tg3: Add 5720 ASIC rev Matt Carlson
2011-04-04 18:37 ` Joe Perches
2011-04-04 23:05 ` Matt Carlson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110404230506.GA8250@mcarlson.broadcom.com \
--to=mcarlson@broadcom.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox